vision.verify

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, required permissions, failure behavior, or what verification means. This is a severe gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, achieving high conciseness. However, it is not structured into sections or bullet points, which would improve scanability. It is appropriately sized for the information provided but could benefit from slightly more detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, object with proof). With 3 parameters (1 required) and no param descriptions, the description leaves much to be inferred. Given the complexity of a verification tool and the existence of many siblings, the description is incomplete for correct tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only vaguely maps 'evidence digest' and 'receipt file' to parameters without naming them. The required 'project_path' is not explained, and the optional parameters 'capture_id' and 'receipt_path' are not explicitly tied to the two verification modes. The description adds minimal value over the schema structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'verify' and the two resources: 'capture by evidence digest' or 'receipt file'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vision.observe' or 'vision.query' by focusing specifically on verification. However, it does not elaborate on what 'verify' entails (e.g., integrity check, authenticity), leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions under which verification is appropriate. It also lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' advice or references to related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.